Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom
LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.
Nobody deserves anonymous abuse unless it is a matter of serious public concern. Assuming that your statement is correct, if the kid is already a "mommas boy" then online bullying would only make things worse. And in your post you have clearly identified yourself as a supporter of online bullying of the less socially able ("deserved"). Consider what this says about you, because it isn't very nice.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.
Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.
Who decides what is "bullying" or "harrassment?" One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system." Who decides this? You? Me? Well, me, of course.
Perhaps Britons are just not retarded enough for that kind of crap.
Thank you and goodnight.
goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
Public health oncerns are generally overbroad, politically targetted, and regularly exaggerated.
I'd suggest it's up to the individual to decide whether second hand smoke from someone smoking pot should characterised as objectionable, welcome, or somewhere in between (as in "Dude, it's only 8:00 in the morning").
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
So lets say someone wants to make an anonymous statement.
Are you suggesting that 'they' are able to do this:
1. Know within a short period of time that Anonymous comment X was made by someone they wish to track down.
2. Subpoena the IP logs of the website where the comment was made (assuming that such logs are kept)
3. Receive the logs, determine which ISP the IP was assigned to
4. Subpoena the IP assignment table of the ISP and receive the cooperation of the ISP.
5. Assuming that the IP is correct, identify the location where the wifi router was.
6. Go to that location and take a guess as to which camera records to subpoena.
7. Subpoena the records of the cameras.
8. Hope that the cameras actually show something and that the data hasn't been overwritten. (Some only store 1 week of video)
9. Ask around and see if anyone saw any nefarious individuals using *gasp*, a laptop. (Who are you going to ask in a McDonalds? The people who are there now, or the people who have scattered to the winds 5 minutes after eating? The employees who are obviously savants and remember everything since they work at McDonalds and could easily identify someone using a laptop in their store 2-3 weeks ago)
10. Realize that the guy who posted the comment didn't even enter the store and simply typed up the statement/message in private and set it up to connect to the first open wifi location and didn't even have to take his laptop out of his bag.
11. ????
12. Profit.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
There are many things that are dangerous in this world. Cars, for instance, are numerous times more dangerous to me than any dog, and I speak as someone who has been attacked by a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those, but they do not necessarily invade the rights of others. Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
SSC
The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me
I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.
Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.
I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.
I feel a lot of scum being abusive and rude to women, threatening to rape them as well.
I have two rottweilers. They are spoilt rotten sweet couch potatoes. If a thief broke into our house they would LICK him to death. They've been brought up with a lot of love and they don't have a clue what aggression is. But despite that they are OMG ROTTWEILERS TAKE THESE MURDERER DOGS AWAY FROM ME!
Maybe we should tackle the actual problem, not the overgeneralization?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
Except that finding out the identity involved getting the IP that the post was made from logged by the web site, then getting the ISP to identify whom was assigned that IP at that time. Since they bothered with the ISP step it would seem his identity was not known by the site.
Which likely could be done for an Anonymous Coward post on slashdot too.
Oh and the mother isn't the mother of the "anonymous" poster but of the guy he pissed off on the forum.
You don't actually think with your brain do you? I personally don't have much of a problem with banning certain breeds, as it has become clear that many people can't train them correctly. However what you are talking about is purposefully making an animal aggressive... there are few dog owners that actually do that. And that can be done to any breed, or probably any animal. The bear analogy is stupid, and if you actually think about it you will realize that. You will also realize that making stupid arguments like you did will only degrade your position, not support it, as most people will see through your veil of logic. I'll make a deal with you, you quit saying stupid shit, and I won't start.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
That is the reason why you need several special permits (driving license, vehicle inspection proof, insurance) to operate a car on a public road.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This is the internet. Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.
People who feel otherwise, should leave.
May the Maths Be with you!
The problem with dog bans is that there's a correlation/causation problem when defining "vicious breeds."